Cardiology 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.02.001

Accession Number: 22398332

Keywords: Adult

Angiography/*instrumentation

Body Size

Cardiology/*instrumentation

Child

Humans

Phantoms, Imaging

Polymethyl Methacrylate

Radiographic Image Enhancement/*instrumentation

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare two angiography systems of different image capture technology, one with flat detector (FD) and one with image intensifier (II), in terms of entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) rate, detector dose (DD) rate and image quality (IQ), in interventional cardiology procedures concerning both adult and pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In order to determine ESAK and DD rates, a digital dosimeter and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) plates were used. For the evaluation of IQ, two contrast objects (the Leeds TOR 18FG and a 5 mm-thick Aluminum plate) were used and two figures of merit were defined in fluoroscopy and cine acquisition modes. Measurements of ESAK, DD rates and IQ were made for various fields of view, pulse and frame acquisition rates. RESULTS: For the particular setup used in this study was noted that ESAK values in the II system were generally larger than the respective values in the FD system (on average 70% for fluoro mode, 5 times for cine mode). When halving the fluoroscopy pulse rate, reduction in ESAK was not proportional, in fluoroscopy mode. Image quality evaluations indicated that II performs better in terms of low contrast sensitivity (LCS) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than the FD system which performs better regarding high contrast resolution (HCR). However, when considering image quality in relation to ESAK the FD system performs better than the II system (with the exception of low thicknesses and zooms for high pulse rates in the fluoroscopy mode). CONCLUSIONS: The FD system, generally, provides a better image quality-dose relation than the II system although II unit provides better LCS and SNR. This means that with the right adjustments to both systems, FD unit is able to provide same image quality with lower dose. However, newer technology does not automatically imply better image quality and further investigation is necessary for deriving safe conclusions for units which utilize different capture technology.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208